jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
Dobbins didn’t have his body (therefore both of his feet) in the EZ did he? The Wash St play wouldn’t be the same thing because of that.
Ohio State will smack clemson right upside the temple
- Thread starter Traderjoe123
- Start date
Dobbins didn’t have his body (therefore both of his feet) in the EZ did he? The Wash St play wouldn’t be the same thing because of that.
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
I’m just not sure that writer knows what he’s arguing. There are literally 2 sets of rules for the EZ and the rest of the field. Whether or not that’s dumb, and it might be, doesnt mean that comparing plays in each setting makes sense to do.
The SEC replay official on this game, Gerald Hodges. It’s not his first game of controversy. FWIW
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
Okay. Sounds like maybe he’s not that good at his job. Or he gets some tough calls to make where maniacal fans on social media create controversy becasue their team didn’t benefit from the call. Neither means anything in this discussion.
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
But don’t they have officials from a conference neither of the two schools playing are from? I’m not sure what the conspiracy is here. He mentioned an SEC replay official in a game between Ohio St and Clemson.
Except it’s B1G officials in the Georgia/Baylor game. Blatant grab
M.W.
Parties like it's 1979
He didn't make the call by himself. He worked with the team back in Birmingham.
AliShaheed
Pretty much a regular
Maybe dumbest idea ever but perhaps referees shouldn't be affiliated with particular conferences?
M.W.
Parties like it's 1979
It's not dumb. When you're already in the end zone with the ball, you don't need to do any of the things they cite as moves common to the game.
M.W.
Parties like it's 1979
To begin with, I'm the smartest person you'll ever interact with in your life.
The officials' opinion was that he didn't complete the catch, partly because he was being pushed backwards which meant he couldn't make a move common to the game.
I think he caught it, but the way the refs are educated to interpret it -- and they all do it the same way (including that crooked fucker Carullo) -- is different from what is commonly understood to be a catch. But even if it was a catch, it can't be a fumble because forward progress was stopped immediately. The rules do not allow you to keep pushing a guy backward forever until you manage to create a fumble.
And you know it.
We will agree to disagree.
Another example of replay NOT being used to correctly call targeting.
1) Launch? yep
2) Lead with crown ? yep
3) Defenseless player? yep
4) Head contact? yep
Didn't even rate a MENTION by the crack crew of Judas, Foolish and Senile in the replay booth....
1) Launch? yep
2) Lead with crown ? yep
3) Defenseless player? yep
4) Head contact? yep
Didn't even rate a MENTION by the crack crew of Judas, Foolish and Senile in the replay booth....
SEC officials (field/replay) called the Ohio State (B1G) - Clemson (ACC) game.
i was just pointing out your absence of logic...which is continuing because now you‘re defending a real-time interpretation of the rules when you said that you need slow-mo to see if he held onto it long enough. You‘re literally just saying anything to support your position. Zero attention to the overall logical coherence of your points.
well in a few of those instances they fumbled the ball lol
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
And? What’s the conspiracy? They aren’t favoring the SEC, so what in the world are you talking about?
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
No. What I said was that the rules aren’t written framed with slow mo in mind. Where did I say they needed slow motion to determine if he held the ball long enough? What I said was that, in this particular play, the only way you’d come to the conclusion he held the ball long enough was to use slow motion replay.
They DO use slow motion replays to determine reviews, but not as an end all be all. In this specific case, the booth came out and said they used the regular speed replay to make their determination.
I hate using slow motion to determine catches or anything to be honest with you, but they do use it. That’s not me doing anything but pointing out facts. If it were up to me, I’d overhaul the entire officiating system by hiring full time officials and getting rid of replay altogether.
Last edited:
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
And again, I’m not defending anything. I’m simply pointing out what happened and what they said. For fuck’s sake, I had tOSU plus the points. Why in the hell would I have wanted the call overturned? That’s the absence in your logic.
And sure, it’s convenient to now say a few of those catches were actually dropped in the thousands you stated. Any reason you didn’t mention that when initially making the point?
I saw helmet to shoulder not helmet to helmet. Watched it 3 or 4 times right there in your post. Admittedly I didn't slow it down.
You seemed to be defending their decision. There‘s no problem there with my logic. We were talking about the rightness or wrongness of the call...that‘s independent of the play you made.
Watched it again. No launch either. An explosion forward at the last second but no launch.
The question was: what constitutes a catch. That‘s separate (Even if obviously related via dependence) from: did he fumble the ball. I was addressing the former...we see tons of catches where the receiver gets tackled immediately thus not successfully advancing the ball or avoiding the defender. The rule says: that he has long enough time to do so.
You keep going back and forth between defending your position and explaining what the refs were doing.
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
I think you’re reading too much into it. You’re acting like I have to take a position in order to have a discussion, or even that it matters what my position is in the convo.
Here it is really slowly for you...the call was overturned. I posted the rule to show where the booth probably went to in order to make their decision. That’s it in a nutshell.
I’m not defending the call, I’m not doing anything other than playing devil’s advocate to anyone who INSISTS it was a catch because a. I’ve seen that as a catch a thousand times (when the ball was held on to), b. I’ve posted a video of another similar catch that was called a catch even though it happened in the EZ and there are different rules there, or c. somehow this is an example of SEC bias.
We all saw it unfold. In real time, I’m not sure anyone thought it was a catch, Herbie and Fowler didn’t until the officials didn’t blow the whistle (which they are instructed to do on those plays). I bring that up because again the booth said they made the determination by using the real time replay.
All the rest is just noise and has nothing to do with this particular catch. The slow motion stuff, the writing of the rules, etc.
M.W.
Parties like it's 1979
Looks like targeting to me. Clear launch to reach the return man's head.
it's crazy how two people can see something so differently. when i think of "launched" i think of a guy's feet leaving the ground. the ducks player's feet did not leave the ground. he lowered his head slightly and from either angle it does not appear to hit the wisky player's helmet but rather his shoulder. also, the wisky player ducked forward at the last split second after the oregon player had slightly lowered (not fully lowered) his head.
this is not very cut and dry like some of you are making it out to be. i've probably watched it 10X now. i don't have a dog in the fight, i am just trying to be objective.
2daBank
Voice of Reason
Almost all of them these days the offensive player ducks his head last second. Rarely do we see intent anymore so the rule did its job which great but I really think now that has been accomplished they should tone it down some.
Ejecting the player is nonsense imo, simply too punitive. The 15 yard penalty is fine but to eject the kid and totally effect the texture of the games is fuckin ridiculous. Only time I could except the ejection if it clear the defender went head 1st into the others head and launched like a missile, something we rarely see. If both sides of play can be argued there no freaking way a player should get kicked out the game imo.
booksbestfriend
On Johnny's Shitlist
The LB hit on CEH was as blatant as they come.
AliShaheed
Pretty much a regular
Agree on all this.
And get rid of the perp walk police escort to the locker room bullshit please. There's no reason to humiliate these kids. Let them sit with their helmet off on the sidelines and support their teammates.
RetroVK
This claim is disputed
Except for clemson who has caught/made for themselves every break imaginable for half a decade
2daBank
Voice of Reason
Yea I could live with a second resulting in ejection if they have to have that at all. It crazy when almost all of them these days are where the ball carrier lowers his head last second. You can clearly see on majority of them the defender targeting chest when last second offensive player head lowers., there nothing a defender can do about that.
If hoody coached college you can bet your ass he would be coaching his guys to drop their heads! Lol. He would have entire defenses ejected!
2daBank
Voice of Reason
My mom was over one day while I was watching a game and she couldn’t believe the police escort thing. She was going nuts about how wrong that was!!! Lol
Lmao...tells me not to read too much into his post then reads too much into my post...repeats slowly the rule as if I struggled to understand him while failing to understand my counter and ofc adjusts his apparent position or non-position or whatever. Thanks for the good laugh, Jedi.
booksbestfriend
On Johnny's Shitlist
It would be like unsportsmanlike conduct. 2nd gets the ejection.
twinkie13
In transit, arriving late.
Exactly
Maybe two levels? One is just a penalty when it doesn’t appear intentional, receiver lowers themselves into the path, etc. Then the penalty/ejection for stuff like the Oklahoma guy last week.
jedi ninja
Larry the liberal
Isn’t this how they used to do it? I seem to recall them having 2 levels to the penalty, similar to flagrant fouls in basketball.
Either way, this seems to be the more sensible way to do things than to just kick the kid out and perp walk him back to the locker room. It does, however, add even more subjectivity, which is never a good thing and possibly why they did away with it in the first place.
Last edited:
AliShaheed
Pretty much a regular
I’d like to see a police arrest take place on the field. DA, judge and jury on-call in the stadium corridor for prosecution let’s not let these monsters back onto the streets.
Last edited:
gps_3
Head of Alabama Department of Decision-Making
I seem to remember people calling Saban a sore loser when he complained about this particular ref crew. Funny how things change.
I think they will revisit the targeting rules soon, but I'm pretty sure they can't even discuss a rule until it's been in play for 2 years. Not sure where the current iteration of targeting is on it's timeline
I think they will revisit the targeting rules soon, but I'm pretty sure they can't even discuss a rule until it's been in play for 2 years. Not sure where the current iteration of targeting is on it's timeline
2daBank
Voice of Reason
Lot of freaking help that was: when you slow it down frame by frame you realize there helmet to helmet contact on half the freaking plays!!
